Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate giving free cards here. A checkraise means you are behind a wast majority of the time, so you shouldn't fear it. Better to bet the turn and when called you usually have a value bet on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The turn paradox.
 

I think you would definitely hear from a good player probably earlier then you would hear from a LAG. My thought being if the good player has a bad K then he would want to find out the relative strength of that holding quickly.

A LAG who seems to have avg aggression I think would wake up on the flop. An overly aggressive LAG may wait for the turn, it is a lot harder to predict... LAG's seem to pick some extraordinary lines when they play... but all in all... I think someone who limped preflop and you don't hear from on the flop probably doesnt have a K...

Re: The turn paradox.
 

I absolutely can't find any reason to check here if you feel you have the best hand. If you have best hand it is very vulnerable to all holdings that the early limper may have except for the holdings you have dominated then he is paying you off... why check?

Against his typical drawing hands against you he has between 11-15 outs and against his made hands with a ten you are in a dominating position that will earn you 2 BB the great majority of the time.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

the case for checking:

1 - you lose much less when behind already
2 - you induce bluffs on the river when ahead
3 - he "may" have live outs against you, but the equity they represent is not huge, and gaining bets on river AND avoiding checkraises worth possibly more than his outs when behind in a current 3.75BB pot.

if you refute these, I can really look at it some more and give an in depth analysis - it's close. but by no means is betting turn standard, and my default play still has not been swayed - its a turn check.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
the case for checking:

1 - you lose much less when behind already
2 - you induce bluffs on the river when ahead
3 - he "may" have live outs against you, but the equity they represent is not huge, and gaining bets on river AND avoiding checkraises worth possibly more than his outs when behind in a current 3.75BB pot.

if you refute these, I can really look at it some more and give an in depth analysis - it's close. but by no means is betting turn standard, and my default play still has not been swayed - its a turn check.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you about number 1. You will certainly lose less when you are behind. I also agree that checking can induce a bluff and that is a good thing as well. However, Im not sure I agree with number 3 here... I believe that his typical drawing hand has many outs against you.

If he has J-9 or q-j he has anywhere from 25-30% equity in the pot. If that is the case I believe then you have to bet. You can't afford to give him infinite odds to get there.

In addition, I think the most important thing to consider are the possible hands that he could hold which you have dominated and he is willing to pay you off with 2 BB's. I believe that these holdings are highly probably and I don't want to let him off only paying me off for one BB.

If you put him on a range of hands... based on his position and his preflop and flop play... I believe you can very accurately deduce a very narrow range of hands. All of which are hands that A-10 needs to bet the turn against.

I would estimate the range to be as follows:

Hands you are behind:
K-J,K-10-not likely-, K-9, 5-5

Hands you have dominated:

q-10,j-10,9-10,10-8

Hands with large draw:

j-9, Q-J

Other possible hands:
8-8,7-7

He could have these last 2 as well... but I wouldn't put him on these big of pp's up front. But they could be possible, but one is in bad shape and one has us in bad shape.

Occurances of hands behind:
34--- not including 7-7

Occurances of hands you dominate:

32-- not including 8-8

Occurances of hands with big draws:
32--

Based off of this (assuming I calculated the possiblities correctly, which Im not the best at) I figure you are ahead at least 2/3's of the time here in this spot. In actuality, you may be ahead here a greater majority then that just based off how the hand has been played so far.

1/3 of the time you are going to gain about 1.7 BB's from the times your opponent has a ten in his hand. (I have ignored the frequency of him calling with a ten and folding on the river unimproved.)

1/3 of the time you will gain .7 of a BB when he has a drawing hand... since he has between 25 and 30% equity. Assuming he wont call on the end unimproved... which is highly unlikely.

In the hands where you are ahead or dominating a bet on the turn will gain you and a bet on the end will gain you 1.2 BB. In the hands where you are behind, you will get c/r by the caller with k-10 all the times, which is a possible 6 occurances. You could also get c/r by k-j, but I would feel that would be remote. However, in all of these situations it would be prudent to fold as you are a big dog. In these situations, you will be losing 1 BB 1/6 of the time or about -.06 of a BB. In the other cases where the player calls down and wins you will lose 1.5 BB's (assuming you bet the end as well) based on our equity in those situations. For a total of -1.6 BB's 1/3 of the time.

In total I would calculate betting as a net gain of .8 BB's... ignoring the possibilities of him c/r us of the best hand with a bluff. With that possiblility... I would calculate a bet as at least a positive gain of .5 BB's.

Let me know what you think!! I could be way off base here, as I don't do this kind of analysis commonly since I am a very feel based player. Overall, I still think it is close whether you should bet or not. However, as the hand has been played to date and based on my reads, I think a bet is in order.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
if you refute these, I can really look at it some more and give an in depth analysis...

[/ QUOTE ]

BUMP

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
not sure if anyone addressed this yet, but I think this is a fold PF.

I could do the math, but a 31/10/1.1 limping 5 off the button has ATo beat, not positive though and you do have position.

[/ QUOTE ]
Stox, Just to let you know I have received alot of flak for not raising my ATo vs unknown early limpers. I dont think this play is profitable and therefore I usually fold in this spot. However I think this situation is different. Judging by the stats of the limper, it does appear to me that hes too loose, and I would also guess from his aggression numbers that this type of person would raise preflop with a hand like AJ. So I think ATo plays very well against the hand range of this early limper so I would raise in this situation.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

I skimmed through the thread, and one thing that I didn't notice is that sometimes you get check-raise bluffed. not only isn't this a negligible factor, but against a lot of these players, it's extemely sigificant. if he decides to checkraise you with QJ or AJ or complete air, you're making much more than if you induced a bluff on the river.

I'm not saying that I'd bet the turn here, but it's something to consider in these situations. in this situation against this guy, I think it's closer to a bet. he's passive enough to check-call a weakish K and he's loose enough to pay off with a worse hand

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
not sure if anyone addressed this yet, but I think this is a fold PF.

I could do the math, but a 31/10/1.1 limping 5 off the button has ATo beat, not positive though and you do have position.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think his postflop tendencies are critical here, as a tight player might fold the best hand on an unfavorable flop for him. he's a little early for my taste too. if he was on the button I could see it, but with 5 players to act after him he's usually not getting it headsup